people, ignore young earth creationists

RichardT · #21 21st August 2007, 02:57 PM

you cant change religious dogma if you find evidence that contradicts it. take for example the 6 day creation story. that story isn't ever going to be amended because that would be heresy, but the theory of evolution can be amended if new evidence is discovered.

The claim that creationists don't use the scientific method is simply not true when creationists are testing new hypotheses. For example, the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed in the past has been rejected by creationists for a better explanation by Russ Humphreys which actually works.

I would like to ask you to not think within the evolutionary paradigm, I know that you're young so I might just be able to convince you. The evolutionist will tell you that their work is absolutely objective (even though the methodology that they use is naturalistic). But what is self evident, from this forum and in the scientific community is that they will not take the idea of a creator God seriously simply because God cannot be objectively tested.

If you truly believe, or know that God is real, I would like to ask you to try to change your paradigm in studying science. Try to stick to empiricism. The naturalist framework is full of grave problems like abiogenesis for example.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

gamespotter10 · #22 21st August 2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by RichardT

The claim that creationists don't use the scientific method is simply not true when creationists are testing new hypotheses. For example, the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed in the past has been rejected by creationists for a better explanation by Russ Humphreys which actually works.

I would like to ask you to not think within the evolutionary paradigm, I know that you're young so I might just be able to convince you. The evolutionist will tell you that their work is absolutely objective (even though the methodology that they use is naturalistic). But what is self evident, from this forum and in the scientific community is that they will not take the idea of a creator God seriously simply because God cannot be objectively tested.

If you truly believe, or know that God is real, I would like to ask you to try to change your paradigm in studying science. Try to stick to empiricism. The naturalist framework is full of grave problems like abiogenesis for example.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

sorry, I dont have time to read that. maybe you can try to convince me that the earth is only 6000 years old? just try.

again, science is religiously neutral. there's the scientific method and the creationist method.

Scientific method: "these are the facts. what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Method: "this is the conclusion. what evidence can we find to support it?"

RichardT · #23 21st August 2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by gamespotter10

sorry, I dont have time to read that. maybe you can try to convince me that the earth is only 6000 years old? just try.

For one, the ages of the geologic column were basically built up and modified based on K-Ar findings. (I say basically because before K-Ar dating, the geologists thought the column was probably millions of years old, but K-Ar findings set dates to them)

And since K-Ar does not correlate between other dating methods, the assumption that K-Ar has always been consistent in the past can be questioned.

Radiometric dates from Alaska - a 1975 compilation

Here is a table for the radiometric dates taken from Alaska.

again, science is religiously neutral. there's the scientific method and the creationist method.

This is false. Both creationists and evolutionists use the scientific method in studying the empirical data, and I would even argue that the creationist is more religiously neutral than the methodological naturalist because it seems to me that the creationist understands his own presuppositions and the presuppositions made by the methodological naturalists. The only difference that I find between when a creationist and a methodological naturalist studies science are the methodologies. Both create hypothesis, both test hypotheses, both falsify hypothesis, both restart from scratch if the hypothesis is falsified within their interpretive framework.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm

Scientific method: "these are the facts. what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Method: "this is the conclusion. what evidence can we find to support it?"

Yes, conclusions within our framework, the methodology of naturalism doesn't allow for alternative explanations other than naturalist explanations, while the creationist framework does not allow for any other explanation than what is set out in the bible. At least the creationist is honest about it, and is able to compare and contrast the hypotheses of both interpretive frameworks, while the methodological naturalist rejects all possible hypotheses from the creationist paradigm for really silly reasons.

This is why I am asking that you should to stick to empiricism, instead of outright fairy tales like abiogenesis.

thaumaturgy · #24 21st August 2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by RichardT

For one, the ages of the geologic column were basically built up and modified based on K-Ar findings. (I say basically because before K-Ar dating, the geologists thought the column was probably millions of years old, but K-Ar findings set dates to them)

ORLY? Ever heard of:

U-Pb
Ar-Ar
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Lu-Hf
Re-Os

?

And since K-Ar does not correlate between other dating methods, the assumption that K-Ar has always been consistent in the past can be questioned.

Read and be educated: HERE

This is false. Both creationists and evolutionists use the scientific method in studying the empirical data

The difference is evolutionists use data along with the scientific method. Something the Creationists don't have any of yet. The minute they get some, let us know!

At least the creationist is honest about it, and is able to compare and contrast the hypotheses of both interpretive frameworks, while the methodological naturalist rejects all possible hypotheses from the creationist paradigm for really silly reasons.

Maybe you need to take a class in how science is really done. You can't just impose any ol' effect you want. There has to be a REASON for a given factor. The very MINUTE you have data in support of a "god hypothesis" you make sure and PUBLISH that sucker! Then you can start multiplying entities as fast as you want.

In the meantime, study up on "statistical design of experiment" and "statistical hypothesis testing".

Get back to us when you have a little science under your belt.

RichardT · #25 21st August 2007, 03:49 PM

ORLY? Ever heard of:

U-Pb
Ar-Ar
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Lu-Hf
Re-Os

?

Yes, but they hardly correlate in the sited study.

Read and be educated: HERE

I'm sure you can find other studies which might show correlation between ages, but a lot of these are probably selective. The one I sited above is plain data with no interpretations or explanations. But I will read it, although I still have to read the sites that FB sent me. I still haven't read them.

The difference is evolutionists use data along with the scientific method. Something the Creationists don't have any of yet. The minute they get some, let us know!

What do you mean? Of course the Creationists use data, that's how they create their hypotheses. Concepts, models, and interpretive theories depend on the physical supporting data. We are using the scientific method.

Maybe you need to take a class in how science is really done. You can't just impose any ol' effect you want. There has to be a REASON for a given factor. The very MINUTE you have data in support of a "god hypothesis" you make sure and PUBLISH that sucker! Then you can start multiplying entities as fast as you want.

The very minute you can objectively test atheism, publish it. This is again why I keep saying that we should stick to empiricism.

In the meantime, study up on "statistical design of experiment" and "statistical hypothesis testing".

Get back to us when you have a little science under your belt.

Whatever man. I have a huge phobia of "debating" Ph.D scientists.

gamespotter10 · #26 21st August 2007, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by RichardT

What do you mean? Of course the Creationists use data, that's how they create their hypotheses. Concepts, models, and interpretive theories depend on the physical supporting data. We are using the scientific method.

epic lulz. the only reason people believe in creationism is because the bible says so. there is not one single piece of positive evidence for creationism. the only tactic creationists have thus far shown is just simply trying to disprove evolution. the logic they follow is that if evolution is untrue, then their creation myth must be true. we have a term for that here in the realm of real science, and it is called the false dichotomy.

thaumaturgy · #27 21st August 2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by RichardT

Yes, but they hardly correlate in the sited study.

I was merely responding to your claim that the geologic column was dated using only K-Ar. That is incorrect. I missed your citation.

I am merely pointing out that geology is bigger than one selected publication. Radiometric dating is bigger than K-Ar.

I'm sure you can find other studies which might show correlation between ages, but a lot of these are probably selective. The one I sited above is plain data with no interpretations or explanations. But I will read it, although I still have to read the sites that FB sent me. I still haven't read them.

No problem. Indeed we can find all sorts of information that radiometric dating works and provides consistent dates. That's why it is believed by the vast majority of earth scientists, especially the ones who do this sort of thing for a living.

What do you mean? Of course the Creationists use data, that's how they create their hypotheses.

Au contraire. Creationists, qua creationists, start with the idea that there IS a creator God and work from there. Otherwise it wouldn't be creationism. Now, in millenia of human history no consistent concept of God has ever been presented, and therefore has not been met with the ability to even "test" for. It is usually expressed as wholly unfalsifiable, which effectively means it is not a valid hypothesis.

So creationists don't start with data, they START with a preconceived notion that all the data must align with. Then they cherry-pick and choose.

The worst part about creationism as science is that it fails right out of the gate because it accepts as REQUIRED one factor, and that factor can neither be tested for nor falsified in any way. Ergo that factor is not valid.

Even if God exists, since we have no way of knowing anything about him that can be tested or falsified, we cannot use God as a factor in the tests. It cannot be an hypothesis.

EVEN IF GOD EXISTS. Until he meets these criteria as SCIENTISTS we cannot say anything about him.

THAT is why Creationists are NOT scientists. It has NOTHING to do with God's reality or how much anyone loves God or anything. It is simply the way Science works.

The very minute you can objectively test atheism, publish it. This is again why I keep saying that we should stick to empiricism.

OK, but in order to further this discussion you need to learn a little logic. It is impossible to "prove a negative". That is pretty crucial for you to understand before you can move forward. Otherwise you'll be debating scientists who know better and your debates will carry absolutely NO value (and will make you look less educated).

So for the sake of YOUR OWN argument, please learn at least this simple rule. You are not required to EVER prove a negative. EVER.

Whatever man. I have a huge phobia of "debating" Ph.D scientists.

As you should. We have spent about as much time in COLLEGE as you've spent ALIVE. Sure we can make mistakes. Sure, we can be proven wrong, but don't for a second think you are right because of bluster. We've seen it all before, we were all once YOU and we were all put in our place by senior scientists and those with more experience.

You should always debate everyone around you, because NO ONE is right 100% of the time. But don't take too much heart from the David and Goliath story.

9 times out of 10 you have to come to the battlefield with more than a slingshot. 90% of the time Goliath is big and strong and has taken down more little sheepherders than you've taken down giants.

RichardT · #28 21st August 2007, 04:56 PM

OK, but in order to further this discussion you need to learn a little logic. It is impossible to "prove a negative". That is pretty crucial for you to understand before you can move forward. Otherwise you'll be debating scientists who know better and your debates will carry absolutely NO value (and will make you look less educated).

So for the sake of YOUR OWN argument, please learn at least this simple rule. You are not required to EVER prove a negative. EVER.

I've heard of this before. Thank you for showing that science will not allow for any hypothesis that has anything to do with God, even if the empirical data would agree more with the theory in which God is a part of.

We cannot disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, gnomes, trolls and the like. I knew this.

Au contraire. Creationists, qua creationists, start with the idea that there IS a creator God and work from there. Otherwise it wouldn't be creationism.

Agreed. But is science truly agnostic over the existence of God? Especially considering what Richard Lewontin thinks about God?

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Now, in millenia of human history no consistent concept of God has ever been presented, and therefore has not been met with the ability to even "test" for. It is usually expressed as wholly unfalsifiable, which effectively means it is not a valid hypothesis.

This doesn't mean we are not to look for intelligence / design in nature. Have you heard of SETI? Why would it be impossible to do the same with God?

THAT is why Creationists are NOT scientists.

What are you talking about? Of course there are scientists that are creationists!

http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html

gamespotter10 · #29 21st August 2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by RichardT

I've heard of this before. Thank you for showing that science will not allow for any hypothesis that has anything to do with God, even if the empirical data would agree more with the theory in which God is a part of.

We cannot disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, gnomes, trolls and the like. I knew this.

there is absolutely no empirical evidence to prove the existence of god. the only reason people in this world believe in god is because they have a reason to, not because the evidence suggests it

RichardT · #30 21st August 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by gamespotter10

there is absolutely no empirical evidence to prove the existence of god. the only reason people in this world believe in god is because they have a reason to, not because the evidence suggests it

I'm not talking about the empirical data to prove the existence of God, I am talking about empirical data within an interpretive framework to test a hypotheses.